The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued notices to relevant authorities on a petition challenging the disqualification of a lawyer holding an Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) domicile from appearing in the recruitment examination for civil judges.
Justice Ayaz Shaukat heard the petition filed by Advocate Umair Shafiq Mughal and directed the Ministry of Law, the IHC Registrar, the officer in charge of the Examination Wing, and the chairman of the Judicial Selection Board to submit para-wise comments within two weeks.
The petitioner told the court that he had applied for the advertised civil judge positions and paid the prescribed application fee within the stipulated deadline.
According to the petition, the recruitment advertisement allocated 50 per cent of the vacancies to Pakistani citizens on open merit, while the remaining 50 per cent were reserved for candidates holding an Islamabad domicile.
The lawyer argued that the advertisement did not expressly exclude applicants holding an AJK domicile. However, he was declared ineligible through the online recruitment portal because of his domicile.
The petition also stated that the written examination for the civil judge positions was scheduled for October 23, leaving the petitioner unable to participate after his application was rejected.
Challenging the decision, the petitioner argued that citizenship determines a person’s legal status, while domicile indicates regional affiliation. He maintained that holding an AJK domicile did not negate his Pakistani citizenship.
He further stated that he holds Pakistani citizenship, a National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) identity card, and a Pakistani passport.
The petitioner has asked the court to direct the relevant authorities to allow him to sit the written examination for the civil judge positions.
After hearing the petition, the IHC issued notices to the respondents and sought their para-wise replies within two weeks. The court’s order on the notices does not, by itself, determine the merits of the petition.
The case concerns the eligibility criteria applied during judicial recruitment and the distinction raised by the petitioner between citizenship and domicile.
